Return the canonical child element order for DDEX ERN 3.8.2 containers such as ReleaseDetailsByTerritory or SoundRecording to compose valid XML sequences.
Return the canonical child element order (XSD sequence / practice) for a container such as ReleaseDetailsByTerritory or SoundRecording.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| parent | Yes | Parent element name, e.g. ReleaseDetailsByTerritory, SoundRecordingDetailsByTerritory, DealTerms |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only lookup and names the underlying standard (XSD sequence / practice), but says nothing about behavior for unknown parents, error handling, or the shape of the returned ordering, all of which matter for a tool whose entire value is its output.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then qualifies it with concrete examples. Nothing is redundant or padded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly adequate, but because there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should describe what the returned ordering looks like (list of element names, XSD order semantics) and how an unknown parent is handled. Those gaps leave an agent guessing about the result.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the single 'parent' parameter is already fully documented with examples in the schema. The description repeats the same kind of example ('ReleaseDetailsByTerritory', 'SoundRecording') without adding format, casing, or namespace rules beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a concrete verb ('Return') and resource ('canonical child element order') and grounds it with real container examples like ReleaseDetailsByTerritory and SoundRecording, so the intent is immediately clear. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the sibling list_sequences or list_elements, leaving some ambiguity about which lookup tool to pick.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by 'for a container such as...', so an agent can infer it applies to container elements rather than leaf elements. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when not to use it, and no routing to alternatives such as explain_element or list_elements.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.